What evidence is there that the person involved should have been on the watchlist in the first place, given that in this country you can have your DNA and details put on a database for being just *accused* of a crime, even if it's thrown out of court with prejudice - and until recently it was damned near impossible to have those details removed from the database.
A woman accuses you of rape, you can prove that you were in different county at the time, but your DNA has been taken and put on the database already by the time you get to make a statement...
The issue here is that data that should not have been available to the persons involved was made available through illegal means - the fact that it is classified as a 'misdemeanour' horrifies me, frankly.
I can remember being in training at BT, and being told that if you went around the systems in a manner in which you were not authorised to [say, doing a number-->address lookup without authorisation] you were sacked and up for criminal charges without any questions being asked and no quarter being given - escorted off site into a police car, along with a couple of press clippings backing this up. And that's for doing a reverse directory enquiry and just getting an address, never mind making potentially false [or at least dubious] statements about someone's character *in fucking court*.
Disgusting state of affairs IMHO.
Flames - because I'm fuming.